googologywikiaorg-20200223-history
Talk:Largest valid googologism
Fish number 7 I disagree that Fish number 7 was a naive extention. There was a good new insight at the time when I defined. Everybody in this googology wiki believed that Fish number 7 was not larger than Rayo number, and I proved that it is actually larger than Rayo number. It was a good new insight at that time. Why should it be written as a naive extention in this article? �� Fish fish fish ... �� 18:14, February 8, 2017 (UTC) :Just look at this blog post, where Wojowu and Deedlit insisted that Fish number 7 is no larger than Rayo's number. I proved that it is actually larger than Rayo's number. It is a new insight at least in this community. After that, discussion went on and Wojowu developed Big Foot. Big Foot is of course much better than Fish number 7, but Fish number 7 served as such discussion. Currently it may be a naive extention compared to Big Foot, but I disagree that Fish number 7 was a naive extention when it was developed. �� Fish fish fish ... �� 18:21, February 8, 2017 (UTC) : If we look at the talk page of Fish number 7, Wojowu, Fluoroantimonic Acid, and vel say that Fish number 7 is not a naive extention. Only Cookie fonster insist that it is a naive extention, because of this article. But actually the article was writen by Wojowu and Wojowu himself thinks that Fish number 7 is not a naive extention. So who says it is a naive extention and why? �� Fish fish fish ... �� ::I also personally don't agree that Fish number 7 is a naive extension, but it is considered by some people to be, perhaps because the adding the "f(a)=b" can be considered a "naive extension" of the language (which, again, I don't agree with). I think such a neutral statement ("...is considered...") would fit better in the article. ::As for the discussion under the blog post, I now realize (considering I have learned a bit of this and that over the years) that what I was talking about is pretty much nonsense. I believed that FOST can create "paradoxical" statements (a bit like liar's paradox, or more precisely Barry's paradox), but Rayo's function is nevertheless defined because it doesn't take such into account (they don't define numbers anyways), and can then be defined in FOST. I can't put myself in this mindset anymore, but based on that discussion, I used to believe that your proof is flawed because for Rayo(10^100) we couldn't use Rayo(Rayo(10^90)) because that would require using the self-interpreter which causes paradoxes and so on; but since FOST can define Rayo it can still define what Fish number 7 system could. ::As I've said, I now realize this is all flawed because we can't define a self-interpreter and FOST can't make paradoxical statements, so all of my ramble can land in a trash bin. Fish number 7 truly is bigger than Rayo's number, as you've said, and, in my opinion, did deserve the spot at its time. LittlePeng9 (talk) 19:03, February 8, 2017 (UTC) ::(after reading the last link Kyodaisuu has added) Okay, so apparently anyone ever considering it a naive extension is a big misunderstand of something, I don't know. Given that, I think the claim that it's considered by some to be naive is not supported by anything, so it can be removed completely. I am going to edit the article accordingly. LittlePeng9 (talk) 19:08, February 8, 2017 (UTC) :::Thanks. Actually it stayed at the bottom of the large number list for a while, and it might indicate that it was recognized as the largest valid googologism... but it doen't matter. �� Fish fish fish ... �� 19:17, February 8, 2017 (UTC) ::I looked to see where I said that Fish number was no larger than Rayo's number in that discussion, but I didn't say that anywhere. I merely said that that extending the language by adding an oracle for the the diagonalization function (like Rayo(n)) was not as strong as say adding a truth predicate. So we did already have ideas back then that were stronger than Fish number 7, and I guess stronger than BIG FOOT and BIG FOFT as well, considering we were talking about superclasses and higher order set theory back then. But I agree there is no need for a "naive extension" tag for Fish number 7. Deedlit11 (talk) 21:16, February 8, 2017 (UTC) :::I see. Vel! and Wojomu said, but not you. �� Fish fish fish ... �� 02:33, February 9, 2017 (UTC) What about BIG FOFT? Seriously though.Isn't it well-defined?Boboris02 (talk) 20:32, February 9, 2017 (UTC) :It doesn't have an outside source yet. LittlePeng9 (talk) 20:44, February 9, 2017 (UTC) :I think Deedlit renamed it "Superfoft". Mush9 (talk) 21:47, February 9, 2017 (UTC) :After finalizing the best definition and naming, I'll put it up somewhere. Deedlit11 (talk) 23:18, February 9, 2017 (UTC) Do whatever you wantBoboris02 (talk) 17:18, February 10, 2017 (UTC) Sasquatch Sasquatch is not valid yet? Too difficult for me to understand and I can't validate it. �� Fish fish fish ... �� 13:01, May 4, 2017 (UTC) Current record holder I think that we must add this number as the current record holder. It may not be allowed to add it under sourcing policy of GWiki since it's in blog post, but I suppose that we don't have other well-defined non-salad googologisms that go beyond Fish number 7. Would anyone mind if I mention \(f^{10}(10 \uparrow^{10} 10)\) in the article? Triakula (talk) 09:02, January 15, 2020 (UTC) : Thank you. I am glad if my works (especially the one which you mentioned) in my blog posts will be regarded as numbers appropriate in this wiki, but to be fair, I disagree with it until we explicitly change the site policy. There are many works by other wiki members such as Letter notation, STON, and NIECF, which I personally respect very much, and it is not fair for me to put my numbers in the article without changing the rule. We need an honest and sound argument on what should be approapriate for articles before deciding to break the rule. : p-adic 09:47, January 15, 2020 (UTC)